Ideas and Wishful Thinking

[Brekkie Boy]

Just wondering what your thoughts are on the Jackpot for this season?

Firstly, regarding the runner up. I always preferred the idea of only the winner getting a prize, with the rest walking away with nothing - but I think the concept of Head of House means it's quite an achievement to reach the final two - and often to get their you have to do things that prevent you from winning.

Now on to the Jackpot itself. I think it's now appropriate for the jackpot to rise to $1,000,000 - in line with Survivor and some other shows.

However, producers can increase the jackpot but can add in a twist or two if they don't want to pay all of it.

The most likely - and most suitable for BBUSA - is to have a weekly Prize Fund Challenge in which the HMs must work together to maintain the prize fund - as we did here in the UK last year.

For example, each week housemates play to save $100,000. Fail the task and the prize goes down. 10 failures means the winner gets nothing.

(In conjunction with this, the runner up gets 10% of the final jackpot).

Big Brother Australia have taken this idea but rather than competing in tasks, $5000 is knocked off the $1m everytime one of Big Brother's rules is broken.

However, this wouldn't really work in the US version as the TV show never actually acknowledges the voice of Big Brother (over the tannoys, in the diary room) - so it be difficult to illustrate the fines to viewers.

[Guest ranster627]

I would love there to be a voice of Big Brother in the USA!

[Guest Janice]

I really hope that they have more older people this year at least three. I am an older woman and would love to be on. What do you guys think of older people being on the show?

[Guest ranster627]

If they didn't always tokenize them I would be fine with it ... the fact is it seems they do not fare well with the challenges, sadly!

[pinky14_81]

I agree ranster. I think it was bb4, with jack. He was my absolute favorite, I was voting for him all the way, but he was eventually voted out. I would have liked Mike if 1) he lasted at least one week last summer and 2) if he wasn't such a staunch republican. (nothing against republicans, no comments regarding politics please, just stating my opinion).

I liked Kent too, but he didn't win either (bb2 was so long ago that I cannot remember when he was evicted).

I wouldn't mind seeing more older people, or uglier people for that matter. This is supposed to be a reality show, and I can tell you one thing, all the people that I see during my life are not all that pretty. The only ugly people last summer was cowboy and nakomis, wow a big wopping two.

[Guest ShelHeartsBB]

I agree it should have a more realistic bunch of HG's. I'm in my mid 30's and just from my experience - I think younger people are little bit more volatile than us oldies. LOL

I'm not making a blanket statement - that is just my experience and I think that's what TPTB are looking for. People who will cause problems and get in each other's faces. Makes for better TV.

[CasperSabe]

Considering that CBS just canceled one of my favorite shows (Joan of Arcadia) because it was drawing in *too old* of an audience .. I wouldn't hold your beath guys ..

Can you sense my bitterness? lol

I just don't think that CBS is going to go for a cast filled with older adults .. or less than perfect looking 'regular' people .. had Nakmosis and Cowboy not been secetly brother and sister I have some doubts that they would have even made it on to the show last year.

CBS I think purposely looks to cast younger, good looking people because they are trying hard to pull in that 18-24 demographic.

[Ivy]

I would like to see more of a real 'slice of life' in the house. But I don't think that's going to happen. I enjoy the show, but I don't like how they cast it. It seems many are playing a part, rather than just being themselves. Too bad -- I think it was more interesting before they stocked it with wannabe actors and models. A few is okay, but that almost seems to be a requirement anymore. I'm all for putting interesting characters on the show, of all ages, but not if they are acting the part.

In spite of my criticizm, I will watch religiously, and check here for updates. I can't help it ---I get hooked every time!

[SaltyDog]

Not to be sexist, but older women in bikini's don't bring in ratings.

[salter-path]

My question is what do you consider "older"? My daughters consider anyone over 35 as "older." I consider anyone over 55 as "older" which only shows age is relevant to the individual.

Jack was boring and Kent was obnoxious. I don't remember who the oldest houseguest has been. Do you? If my memory is correct there have only been a "token" houseguest over 40 and never a team that could form an alliance. Same with the lone gay houseguest. Both Bunky and Will were lone wolves. I think it would be interesting to see more than a token, either gay or mature houseguest, to allow an alliance and a fair shake at winning.

I have faith in the audience that they would forgive the lack of bikini eye candy. But..Jane Fonda looks pretty great in a bikini and so does Suzanne Somers ( both much older)proving old age isn't all bikini challenged!

[Guest ranster627]

thanks for saying that Salter ... I agree on both counts ... I also wonder if having two gay players would start a war or alliance ...

As for the "older set" ... I already stated my views that they have been tokenized too! :wink:

Isn't it amazing when there are more mature people they "outplay, outlast and outwit"? :wink: I remember Jeff making that observation for Survivor, and I think the same would happen here if the playing field was equalized!

[pinky14_81]

Same with the lone gay houseguest. Both Bunky and Will were lone wolves. I think it would be interesting  to see more than a token, either gay or mature houseguest, to allow an alliance  and a fair shake at winning.

What about Marcellas (sp?) though? He was all up with at least Amy? He lasted pretty long. But I do agree with you, maybe they should have another gay person in the house. I think it would add dynamics to the show. Did anyone here see the Philly Real World? There were two gay men in the house, and they were completely opposite! Just goes to show that you shouldn't stereotype anyone. But I digress..... :roll:

[blondies_fan]

i agree i think there should be older houseguests but not just older i think there should be older younger smarter dumber athletic non-althletic black white other and a lot of diversity this season.

[Guest ranster627]

diversity! right on ... but I doubt it will happen in any significant way!

[Guest Numfar]

a) Would be better.

Will never happen.

Someone above noted that younger people are more volatile. That's probably the reason behind B.

[Guest Numfar]

I actually think the show would be more exciting (for us viewers) if the grand prize was substantially less. I'd like $50,000 to be the top prize, but would settle for $100,000.

My thinking is that right now, getting so fed up that you'd do something to get yourself kicked out - or just being so frustrated that you'd leave - is so unlikely b/c the prize is so big. The result is that people aren't really themselves b/c they are competing so hard for the money. Danni was the perfect example of this.

Lower the prize winnings, however, and maybe Danni isn't as focussed on the final prize, so her frustration builds to the point where she thinks 'feck it', and she opens up on the other HGs with her true feelings, and suddenly she's telling Roddy he's the 'Devil' to his face, when it counts.

We hear a lot of talk about HGs forgetting about the cameras - and this is good for us, b/c presumably, this show is about watching people's 'Real' behaviour. Unfortunately, unlike the cameras, I think the 'final prize' is something many players can't forget about, and it's promise looms too large over the game, influencing player actions too greatly, and stunting reactions/conflicts etc, all to our (viewers) detriment.

I think raising the final prize would only benefit the winner, do nothing to improve the game for us, and could potentially INCREASE the guarded nature of HGs - something that is absolutely not in our interest.

That said, I think it's a good idea to tie prizes to the challenges and winning HoH. It could make that a 'want-to-win' thing again, rather than 'want-to-throw'. It would also bring out the competitive nature in many HGs, and could reward good playing. Altogether a great idea.

[CasperSabe]

Without a 'big' pay out .. why would they volunteer to be sequestered away from friends, family, tv, the internet, and their daily lives??

In that case, I think we'd only get fame whores who want to be on tv .. instead of people who really want to complete or play a game ..

I kind of like the idea of a bigger prize, with compeitions that they must win to perserve it ..

Or on the opposite end .. the regular 500,000 grand prize with compeitions to increase the jack pot .. somehow I think that would keep the house guests from throwing comepitions

[Guest Numfar]

Without a 'big' pay out .. why would they volunteer to be sequestered away from friends, family, tv, the internet, and their daily lives??

In that case, I think we'd only get fame whores who want to be on tv .. instead of people who really want to complete or play a game .. 

I think you'd get a lot more people to whom $50,000 seems like a lot of money, and a lot less Mike Boogies and Jase's, who would be just shallow enough to scoff at the lower prize money as being representative of a show that was 'beneath them'. I'd be more than happy to sacrifice some of the applicants to get rid of people like that.

No matter, though, if applications dropped by half or more, the casting directors would still have more than enough applicants to select a good cast - should they choose - or a fame-whore cast - should they choose. It's not like the 500,000 has kept those fame-whores outside as it is. We have to live with the casting in either case.

My point is that once INSIDE the house, the lower prize money would have the effect of liberating actions - or at least removing one major incentive to quell true responses - and that, I suggest, is a good thing.

It's true, I think, that BB started in Holland, and the top prize wasn't that high - and in the UK, I think first prize was (maybe is - not sure) 70,000 pounds - around $150,000 US. In a score of countries, they have lower top prizes and MORE drama from the folks in the house. Is their a correlation? I don't know, but darn if I wouldn't be open to giving it a try.

[ScottishTXn]

For the most part...over 30 = people more on the stable mellower(not actually boring..just more grounded)path of life.

Under 30 tends to be edgier,chancier and more willing tae take risks.Bikinis aside...it's a more vibrant pulse verry apparent when the different ages are mixed in a room amongst each other.

No offense..but I'm not likely to tune into an older version of Big Brother(Big Daddy?).And I'm in my 30's! :roll:

[CasperSabe]

lol I see where your coming from Numfar .. I guess I just don't agree.. I think the prize should be higher .. I think that it would make it seem more like a *true* reality/compeition .. all the other *real* reality shows on CBS have a 1,000,000 prize .. Survivior, Amazing Race, etc..

[Guest Sara]

Personally I think they should raise the $, but I also wonder like ranster627 will we ever hear the voice of BB? :roll:

[Guest ranster627]

it seems to me that the lower the prize the more likely you are to get "real" people in there ... the pros (models/actors) would not sign up for a lower sum ...

[Guest Sara]

Good point, but do you really think it would effect the group of people going in? $ is $ and people get greedy.

[Guest ranster627]

I am not sure ... Cowboy was pretty real ... like him or not ... personally, I like the higher amount, seems like there is so much more at stake, and it raises the game playing!

[Guest Sara]

So then you agree the higher prize would in fact make it more interesting am I correct?